Advertisement

Advertisement

Ark verdict spells ruin for geologist

By Leigh Dayton

Sydney

ONE of the most bizarre cases ever to be heard in an Australian court,
centring on a creationist’s claim that Noah’s Ark has been discovered in Turkey,
has left the geologist who brought the suit facing financial ruin.

Ian Plimer, head of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of
Melbourne, sued Allen Roberts, a Sydney-based creationist, under Australia’s
Trade Practices Act. He alleged that videos, audio tapes and literature
distributed by Ark Search, an organisation run by Roberts, were “misleading and
deceptive” (This Week, 30 November 1996, p 4).

But in a ruling delivered on 2 June in the Sydney Federal Court, Justice
Ronald Sackville rejected Plimer’s complaint. While some of the claims made by
Roberts were false, Sackville ruled that the creationist’s activities did not
constitute “trade or commerce”. Plimer, who is facing bankruptcy after selling
his house to finance a series of legal battles with creationists, is considering
an appeal. “If you don’t take risks, you don’t get anywhere,” he says.

Advertisement

Plimer argues that challenging the claims of those who support a literal
interpretation of the Bible is important to prevent creationist teaching finding
its way into school science curricula.

In the seven-day trial heard in April, Plimer accused Roberts of “abusing
science” in presenting evidence to support the claim that a geological formation
some 20 kilometres from the summit of Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey is the
remains of Noah’s Ark.

During the trial, the geologist caused a sensation when he claimed that Salih
Bayraktutan of Atatürk University in Erzurum, who manages the site, knew
the “Ark” was a hoax. “He pointed out to me that the universities in Turkey are
very poor and he’s using this site to get money from Christian fundamentalists,”
Plimer told the court.

The court agreed that Roberts had falsely claimed to have conducted or
commissioned research identifying the geological formation as the Ark. Roberts
claimed to have found nails and animal hair at the site and to have confirmed
the Ark’s structure using “subsurface interface sonar”. Plimer testified that he
had examined mud from the site and found golf tees and other pieces of modern
plastic detritis.

In a second decision, Sackville awarded A&dollar;2500 (£1200) to David
Fasold, a mar-ine salvage expert who has studied the Turkish site. Fasold had
complained that Roberts had reproduced a diagram from his book, The Ark of
Noah, without permission.